Schedule 3: What Does It Mean? Webinar

Added: 2026-05-08

[00:00:00]are live and recording on YouTube.

[00:00:04]Yeah, what's most important is the recording, obviously.

[00:00:07]So, excellent. Demetri Downing here, founder of Mita. This is exciting stuff.

[00:00:12]Schedule three, maybe it's exciting stuff. We're going to find out. But first of all, I want to introduce our guests today and thank them all for coming. I'm looking at the screen and the billable hour here is probably like $2,500 of time for the I don't know exactly your guys' exact billable rates, but I was thinking about that. So, everybody out there who's watching this should greatly appreciate your guys' time and your information.

[00:00:40]And I'll start with our host today. Lou, you want to introduce yourself and to the community? Demetri, I thank you. I'm Lou Magazzu. I am an attorney in New Jersey. I am 15-year county commissioner, 15-year municipal attorney.

[00:00:55]Before getting into the cannabis, I was a development attorney in cellular, malls, assisted living facility, cable TV.

[00:01:02]Uh 2018 had my first opportunity to represent someone in New company in New Jersey for it was then medical.

[00:01:11]We did well. And since then, I've about 30 applications, I think at this point.

[00:01:16]I handle the land use. I work with the experts with the sector CRC application.

[00:01:22]And uh uh enjoyed very much the opportunity to work with my friend Demetri and this august group of of great minds and scholars. So, I look forward to the opportunity to talk about something that uh is very serious, lots of implications, and at least from my perspective, more questions than answers.

[00:01:43]Uh John, do you want to go ahead and introduce yourself?

[00:01:45]Yeah, I'd be happy to. Thank you, Demetri. My name's John Udell. I'm an attorney, lobbyist, and medical marijuana patient out here in Arizona.

[00:01:56]I've been practicing representing marijuana clients going back to the medical days before adult use legalization in Arizona.

[00:02:04]Around the time of legalization, I joined the board of directors of Arizona NORML out here and played an active role in advocating for the legalization measure. And since then, I've been representing businesses as well as engaging in continued advocacy at the capital to change our laws for the better. So, like Lou said, there's some really interesting stuff to discuss today.

[00:02:27]I think a lot of surprises, a lot of questions that are raised and and really a lot of potential implications, not only for businesses, which we expected, but also for medical marijuana patients.

[00:02:39]So, again, I'm grateful to be here and I'll toss it back over to you, Demetri.

[00:02:43]Yeah, and Jeff, Jeff, you want to go ahead and introduce yourself and follow that by Tom. And Tom, after you introduce yourself, let's go right into the legal foundation. You can talk about what exactly the DOJ did here. I know you have a pretty good summary of that.

[00:02:58]So, Jeff, go ahead.

[00:03:01]Sure, my name is Jeffrey Hoffman. I'm a cannabis attorney and legalization activist in New York City.

[00:03:08]Um in addition to my practice, I have a little show on LinkedIn called Ask Me Anything About Cannabis Legalization in New York, which we do every Wednesday at 4:20 p.m. New York City time.

[00:03:21]Um really excited to talk about this topic today. It's something I've kind of been talking about a lot both on my show and with folks all over the city and all over the state. And I'm looking forward to getting to the good, the bad, and unfortunately, what I think is the ugly of what the federal government has now done here. Over to you, Tom.

[00:03:42]Hey, everybody. My name's Tom Howard.

[00:03:44]You can find me at well, probably Cannabis Legalization News on YouTube. I am a lawyer in the middle of Illinois. And then I also have a dispensary that should be open. Well, it's May. It's May 1st. Happy May Day, everybody. Uh this month, and which is just a real boondoggle. This industry is not easy.

[00:04:05]And then to make it more difficult, they've now bifurcated it.

[00:04:09]And so, my adult use is completely still schedule one, even though it's essentially the exact same regulations that an Illinois dispensary has to follow for medical use with some slight tax and patient discrepancies. But, you know, those regulations are minuscule compared to the pile of regulations that you have to comply with. And then you have if I buy it from my medical shop with my card, or if I grow it with my medical card, my five five plants, that perhaps might be schedule three. But if I sell it from my regulated shop that is not a medical shop, that is schedule one.

[00:04:49]Which brings us Well, the actual document, the actual procedural step as to what happened here with the DOJ and what they did and what's going to happen next. I just want to talk a little bit about the process and the piece of paper itself.

[00:05:05]The piece of paper itself was what they call a final rule. There was not a notice of final rule. There was not a notice of proposed rule making. There was nothing. The acting attorney general and so it's not even an attorney general, Todd Blanche, published a a final rule that nobody had expected. And so, just like Monty Python sketch with the Spanish Inquisition, we have the convention of controlled substances that the UN passed in 1961. Approximately 10 years thereafter, the that that international law was engrafted into the Controlled Substances Act that was then passed by Congress.

[00:05:47]Interestingly enough, with a part F that studied marijuana that became the Shafer report. They threw it in the trash and they as Nixon administration in that respect. You know, you fast forward 50 years later and you have another Republican administration completely undoing that cuz they they could have in theory read the the Shafer Commission and then rescheduled it to schedule three to allow for medical cannabis to be the law of the land. They did not do that. So, the they filed a final rule for medical cannabis to be in compliance with that 1961 UN charter. And it is fascinating.

[00:06:29]Just unexpected. I don't know anybody I've talked to that had that on their bingo card. And we have a very as Lou mentioned, an august group of attorneys here.

[00:06:39]Anybody see this one coming? Seriously?

[00:06:43]Yeah, Jeff, okay. Jeff, and and and we'll we'll get into the the politics and all that kind of stuff. But I just want to, you know, make clear exactly what this piece of paper is and what it means and what step it is procedurally speaking.

[00:06:58]This is a final rule. Oh, Jeff, go ahead. No, let let Tom go.

[00:07:02]Tom is rolling. I like what Tom's doing.

[00:07:03]He's got this name. Go ahead. It is a it's a final rule published in the Federal Register. It is law. And it might be a 30-day and then, oh my goodness, when if you read the whole 30-some pages, they do this and then they explain that all these other laws don't apply to it. So, it's just skipping a line on numerous federal laws. And then you know, Florida alone is is hundreds of millions of dollars because every Florida license is a medical license.

[00:07:33]So, they're all fine.

[00:07:35]Missouri, every license is a medical license cuz they have hybrids.

[00:07:39]In Illinois, we only have 55 medical dispensaries. And and then the portal that they put out is just for medical dispensaries. But the legal act that they made was changing federal law so that now marijuana, the same identical marijuana, so the same SKU that is sold in New York or in in in Illinois or in New Jersey or in Arizona, that goes to one shop being the medical shop, will be schedule three. But then if that marijuana is shipped over to an adult use shop, that is schedule one right there with if it fell off the back of a truck in Oklahoma somewhere and then ended up in a Texas hemp shop.

[00:08:24]Fascinating is an understatement of this this >> going to get into the cultivator perspective, the retailer perspective, manufacturer perspective, the patient perspective, all that eventually. I just want to lay out clearly where we are at procedurally and what's going to happen next. People are talking about 60 days this, hearing in June this, you know, schedule three hearing in June, more rules, more executive rules coming down the pipeline. Anybody else want to chime in on that? Demetri, to use the to extend the Monty Python analogy, uh instead of the federal government, people the entities that should run this are the knights who say "Ni."

[00:09:07]Because there's a different set of rules depending on the section of the law that you read. Am I the only one that's old enough to remember the knights that say "Ni?" Oh, no, of course not, sir.

[00:09:16]Anyway, but Ecky ecky ecky patang.

[00:09:22]You know what? You are the best. You are the best.

[00:09:25]To Tom's point, and I let's and I don't want to get too much into the weeds, no pun intended, but I think it's important to talk about the procedural history, the absence of the procedural history, and the fact that it came really wholly wholly born through the pen of the acting attorney general. And those procedural steps, which are perceived perhaps as niceties, also have a purpose in terms of vetting purpose, a determination as to whether uh, going to the left or going to the right or going down the middle, what makes the most sense? And none of that happened. I I would suggest, the cynic in me, that if I was prosecuting an an unpopular war and I was worried about files coming out, I would find something else to make newsworthy and uh, and and and but maybe that's just a cynic in me. But as a consequence of the of the lack of procedural um, appropriateness, not only do I think it's potentially flawed by way of legal challenge, but I think in terms of implement implementation, it's a disaster.

[00:10:29]And I I suspect that none of this we will not see the benefit. Maybe we'll see the detriment. And that and maybe we can talk at some point whether again, a little bit of my conspiracy theory, whether this is all really ultimately a an attempt by the uh, pharmaceutical industry to uh, take something they've coveted for a for a while. But just as to the main issue here, uh, I have some real questions as to, um, whether um, procedurally and substantively, this is ever going to really hold up because of the way it was born.

[00:11:02]Yeah, it's a >> [clears throat] >> Go ahead, John. Yeah, I was just going to I was going to jump in there for a second. I I think that Lou raises a lot of really salient points there. Um, I've been thinking a lot too about the the legal challenge, the extraordinary path.

[00:11:14]Um, a lot of extraordinary things about rescheduling from the contents of what it does to how it happened. And I I think that the circumventing the the typical notice and comment rule making that usually fleshes out a lot of these issues.

[00:11:29]Um, I wonder what that does to the long-term viability of this rule. Um, I've seen on on social media and news releases, Project SAM, which is of course very active across the United States right now in trying to repeal marijuana reforms have already announced that they plan to challenge this in court. Um, I wonder too if this looks like a if it goes to court, if it ends up being, you know, all approved, all struck down, or somewhere in the middle.

[00:11:54]Um, maybe rescheduling can survive, but not all of these very unique um, provisions uh, that that provides for the registration of of state-licensed dispensaries. And and also I I thought it was interesting, a a little bit of a a quick tangent here, circling back to a comment that was made earlier about um, how the the rescheduling actually looks.

[00:12:15]It's not rescheduling, quote unquote, medical marijuana, but marijuana that is in an FDA-approved drug or, quote unquote, subject to a state medical marijuana license. So, I wonder too, circling back to Tom's comment about homegrow. I mean, when you do homegrow as a patient, it's for a medical purpose, but is it subject to a state medical marijuana license?

[00:12:37]It it doesn't really seem to be unless your patient registration functions as a license for that purpose.

[00:12:43]Um, and I see Jeff shaking his head. I I don't know. It does in Illinois. Like it's it's literally a thing in Illinois where if you're just an adult It's state-specific. And so, uh, arbitrary and capricious, another legal term that is thrown around quite often.

[00:12:59]Uh, it it this rule, it's a final rule, it may >> [snorts] >> fit that that term of arbitrary and capricious, especially when you consider it's like the exact same skew and it's on two different trucks. One goes to the medical dispensary, one goes to the adult use dispensary.

[00:13:18]They are treated differently under the federal law. Uh, and Before we assume that this is going to stay in place, timelines and potential adversaries, uh, SAM, do they have the resources? Do they have the firepower? Uh, pharmaceutical companies might challenge this.

[00:13:35]Different marijuana groups might challenge this for different reasons.

[00:13:38]What do you guys see on the horizon, uh, date-wise, time-wise, and individuals out there who might rattle the cage? Okay. I did a I did a an ex deep dive into SAM's filing. So, SAM, Smart Approaches to Marijuana, whenever you hear that, we're not talking about a person named SAM, we're talking about an NGO that advocates for repealing any type of liberalization of the marijuana laws to keep them criminal. So, SAM has to file reports as it is a 501c4, I believe. And as a result, you can you can't see, it's opaque. You can't really see where the money's coming from, but you can see where the expenses are going. One of the expenses was over $300,000 to build Bars, Law Firm, Torridin Law. And they made $12 million in their most recent filing from 2024.

[00:14:26]They'll have a new filing, of course, with the new tax year of 2025.

[00:14:30]One thing that this interesting final rule does is effectively double their litigation budget. And you think that our hourly rates is would be, you know, difficult to pay. Uh, Torridin Law is a boutique law firm and he is the former Attorney General of the United States. So, I I'm assuming he is north of a thousand dollars an hour. The associates that work on it are north of $500 an hour.

[00:14:57]And a $300,000 retainer is going to get ripped real quick. And so, you know, hopefully SAM can write more checks to Torridin Law because now they're going to have to do it twice. As this is a final rule, it's what they call like a final administrative decision that it typically kicks off a a deadline of a short deadline in which to file an appeal. Uh, I'm not exactly sure what it is at the federal level, but probably 30 days. So, you will see a lawsuit filed before May is out. Uh, and and what will they be uh, alleging in the lawsuit? Well, probably ultra vires.

[00:15:30]Uh, they they went beyond the power granted to the the the ex administrative branch and they've really encroached as to the the powers that are supposed to be reserved to Congress.

[00:15:44]That may be effective, but we'll see.

[00:15:47]Jeff, uh, John, on a certain level, it must be satisfying to see the prohibitionists on the defensive, though.

[00:15:54]Yeah, I mean, that 100%. Um, and I love that this is a victory for common sense.

[00:15:59]Um, I think victory for common sense, potentially a victory for for market fairness. Um, and I also, in terms of, you know, heads exploding, I I'll point out a a tweet, I think it was from Kevin Sabet, who's the director over at Project SAM, complaining about how I think it was a podcast host in active addiction are making drug policy for the organization for the administration. So, um, a lot of interesting um, comments after this. Also interesting comments that I think triggered uh, fueled some of this this backlash from Project SAM and even more. I thought one comment in the final rule just remarkable to hear from the federal government uh, comparing marijuana withdrawal to alcohol withdrawal and saying alcohol withdrawal is a lot worse and it can even lead to death. And and just fascinating to again see a document from the United States government that seems to suggest that marijuana is safer than alcohol.

[00:16:54]If you don't mind, I would like to jump back and talk a little bit about the exact history of how we got here in the near term.

[00:17:03]Absolutely.

[00:17:04]Let's not forget uh, the previous president of the United States, Mr. Joe Biden, did exactly what Trump did. He issued an executive order ordering the people that work for him, in theory, the Justice Department, to go through this process, to do some kind of rescheduling process.

[00:17:25]It's usually the right in this country and people that like right issues that complain about the quote unquote deep state.

[00:17:32]This was a turnabout is fair play and an issue that the left in this country, cannabis legalization or some type of movement on that, got impacted by the deep state. Basically, for the remainder of Joe Biden's term, the people that work for him just said, "Yeah, it's great. Go back to bed. We don't really care about any of this and and have a nice day."

[00:17:53]President Trump gets reelected. Uh, obviously, we're 45 and 47 there, so it's not technically reelected, but elected again.

[00:18:00]Um, Dmitri, you and I talked about this sometimes when we met. I got a lot more vocal about it when Trump got reelected and just said, "Look, Trump is a Republican in name only. The the the his real political party is the Trump party. And I thought at that point was the most likely time in the 50 years since we had the Controlled Substances Act or anything about cannabis in this country that something would happen."

[00:18:26]We all also know that and I and I hear the ideas of, "Oh, there's certain files that we don't want the press getting out about." All these types of things. I just think it's fascinating that an issue that I think if you'd have asked anybody that really knows anything about it, which party is going to be the party that moves on this, folks would have it would have been you know, 100 zero that it would eventually be the Democratic Party and and their legislators or executives that would have done this.

[00:18:51]It's fascinating that it's come to be Trump. Um, again, I thought it was most likely to happen is Trump doesn't play by the rules that everyone else seems to think they have to play by, right? Trump is running this country by executive order, like it or lump it, right? I mean, and he leaves it to the Supreme Court to clean up his messes in a lot of cases along these lines. And I thought there was no question that at some point Trump would reissue the executive order that Biden already issued. He did.

[00:19:21]Trump then got deep stated. I mean, remember, he issued this order five, six months ago. And basically, nothing happened, right? And then, uh, Joe Rogan and a bunch of other folks are up there at the White House. I think they were up signing something about ibogaine and the and the psychedelic um, things an executive order that line. And Trump basically, as he does, goes off the record and says, "They're slow rolling me on cannabis, Joe. They're slow rolling." I mean, literally, that's the quote. That's what he said to Joe Rogan there in the White House. And so, we all know he fired Pam Bondi, who was his attorney general that ultimately was responsible for being a slow road. If Pam Bondi had gone to her people and said, "Trump said do this, do it immediately." I they would have it would have happened back in December or whatever.

[00:20:06]Trump fires her, has his former personal attorney in the position now, and what do you think is going to happen when the president on the news says, "They're slow rolling me, Joe. My people just need to get this done." Todd Blatt said, "I hear you, sir." And me like literally a day or two later, what do we get? This order from the acting attorney general that we've all questioned the procedural natures to it and the procedural bonafides to it, but again, we're dealing with an administration that just really doesn't care about that for good or bad. And so they just went ahead and basically legalized medical cannabis via executive order. In a nutshell, that is kind of what has happened here. So I just I did kind of want to talk a little bit about it procedurally cuz I just think the dynamics of this blow my head up, blow everybody. Again, the party that it came from and again Trump isn't really Republican. We've talked but just like where this came from, how it happened so quickly procedurally really upended the button. I think everybody's at a loss for what happens. And I mean obviously we know we're going to have hearings this summer, but like I think everyone is now scrambling because of kind of the let's just blow it up nature of how this administration operates. And Lou Lou I want to hear from you on this subject on what we're talking about right now, but then we're going to get into a little bit about how this might impact manufacturers, cultivators, businesses, and what they might plan for. But obviously the history and status is extraordinarily extraordinarily important. So Lou go ahead.

[00:21:39]Well, Demetri, you may remember that about a year ago I actually suggested to you that I thought the best way to get to either rescheduling or something akin to that was Donald Trump as president and a Democratic Congress.

[00:21:56]And and that analysis was because now I happen to be the only person on this group that actually sued Donald Trump when he was a casino operator, successfully by the way.

[00:22:06]Settled about 75 cents on a dollar.

[00:22:09]And I got to know him a little bit, not well, but well enough that I had dinner with him once. And he is extraordinary as we all know, extraordinarily transactional. And he also wants to make a difference, good, bad, or indifferent.

[00:22:22]He wants to make a difference. A Republican Congress would never ever go for this as a piece of legislation because of the far right. Democratic Congress, I think is more likely to do so. Now why am I saying all of this?

[00:22:36]Because if in fact the Democrats win the House and the Senate and the procedural deficiencies and substantive deficiencies that we've alluded to become clear, there will be an opportunity to clean the mess up. And that is to actually go through the right procedures legislatively or through the regulatory path. But there may be a way, and call me an optimist, not often, but in this instance perhaps, that I think with a Democratic Congress there may be an opportunity to and Trump as president to get to something that really approximates where they wanted to go, assuming that that they really wanted to get to a place where there would be, for lack of a better term, legalization of adult use. Now Tom's points about fact that there are virtually innumerable flaws with respect to the way they treat adult use and medical use, and the fact they're treating the same plant in two completely different ways, and maybe that's because that's how it developed in the states originally. But you know, it it is is yet another issue. But I I would be reluctant to tell anybody to make any kind of plan based on what came from the from Washington because I think it's so flawed that the money you're going to spend, first money spent on this is going to be bad money because I think there's going there's so much uncertainty. And a reasonable court, I think is going to send it all back and say that there's just too many I don't think they'll be able to bifurcate and take the good out from the bad. I think they're going to say it's such the process was so bad and so inconsistent with with with the protocols as as to as to throw the whole thing out. And that's my prediction that ultimately will happen once it works its way through the courts. And and that that's interesting. And and I want to talk cuz I see a lot of schedule three opportunities. I see a lot of business opportunities that if things remain in place could occur.

[00:24:35]And and smart businessmen wait, they don't necessarily want to be first.

[00:24:39]When do you see this settling down time wise procedure? There's that big hearing at the end of June. How long should somebody wait before they, you know, keep them in close contact with your attorney? And and be patient, but how patient, how long? Cuz everybody wants to be the first actor, etc. >> [clears throat] >> Timeline, time frame, what do you guys see? Lawsuits, process, hearings.

[00:25:03]Lawsuits very quick. And so like lawsuits within the first 30 days. But then I don't know how long that lawsuit will last. Like the lawsuit will probably ask for injunctive relief. So like the lawsuit will probably say like I need a PI or preliminary injunction and a TRO, a temporary restraining order enjoining the the United States from, you know, enforcing this. And so while we have cuz like this week the the the 60-day portal opened. And so like all these medical cannabis licenses can fill this out right now. And and so while that process is going on, the lawsuit will be filed in the next 60 days. And then they will ask for everything to stop. There's a there's a one going on right now in Texas, an injunction that had happened in Texas for something that became effective approximately a month ago. They they changed the rules for hemp flower. And you might see very similar arguments made like well this ultra vires, like you're encroaching as to like this was Congress to to decide this, you know, you for 50 years haven't said that we should enforce the the the single convention this way. This is extremely novel reading of it, shouldn't Congress have been involved? And and also why do you say this isn't a major rule that's that's $200 million or more?

[00:26:28]This is clearly worth billions of dollars a year and you just you just go to it being enforceable while you're dual tracking and you're going to re they canceled the hearing which great, and now they're going to restart the hearing in June. Now that's for the full section of the rescheduling for all of this marijuana under a different section of the Controlled Substances Act, same same provision, 811, but the the one regarding compliance with our international treaty obligations, 811D, and the one regarding the the change by the the Attorney General to a different, you know, the one that Joe Biden kicked off three and a half years ago now is 811A.

[00:27:10]And so that's why they have to have that hearing on the, you know, so that they can have the the change be there and it would be more bulletproof if and when the SAM files that second challenge to the the the administrative process that's happened. This first challenge probably going to be successful. That second challenge after they let that whole thing play out probably won't be successful.

[00:27:36]Let me just start out hypothetical. If I'm a dispensary owner who just looks at this suddenly says 280E, I'm getting retroactively millions and millions of dollars and I want to jump in and participate in that lawsuit that somebody's trying to stop this new law, isn't that something that a lawyer could handle and and do? Wouldn't that be a good idea to do that?

[00:28:00]Given that you have the momentum?

[00:28:02]Anyone want to jump on that one?

[00:28:04]I don't see IRS doesn't like doing things retroactively.

[00:28:08]Look look at look at the recent tariff findings where there was a determination that the tariffs were illegal. Nobody's going to get None of us who paid extra tariffs are going to get our money back, okay? It's going to go somewhere else.

[00:28:23]So and I I same analogy. I don't think there's going to be any clawback or retroactive activity with respect to 280E.

[00:28:31]And and regarding regarding the tariffs, too, it's a an interesting topic. I've I've been thinking about this analogy potentially 280E and the tariff refunds.

[00:28:39]And there's another difference I think between these on top of that, which is that the court in the with respect to tariffs found those tariffs were unlawful previously when they were applied, whereas versus here there's no finding that, you know, we were wrong before and it was unlawful to leave it in schedule one, just that they're changing the schedule. So I I don't know, I'm not 100% sure about standing in in a case like that regarding jumping into the the debate.

[00:29:05]I haven't given a a ton of thought to that issue. But regarding the the overall topic of what's the timeline like, how long should people wait, I think like many of the issues that we'll be discussing today and have discussed thus far, a lot of these are going to depend that's going to vary from person to person to some degree I think depending on what your personal risk looks like. For example, that question could look different for a medical only medical marijuana place in Florida versus a dual licensee out here in in Arizona. If there is a world where dual licensees are are able to apply and get registered right now, and again True Leaf just submitted 200 I think applications I saw yesterday, which presumably I think includes some of the dual ones here in Arizona, and they've been reported at least to have ties to the Trump administration. So, but again, that's different than a dual license here where compliance would probably could potentially cause the segregation of product and a lot of other operational changes to meet DEA regulations for for registrants. So, it it likely varies I would say from one business to another and it's something that y'all should be discussing with your attorneys.

[00:30:15]So, before we get into all those potential business models, plans, strategies, which there are lots of, and if this everything remains in place and there's no challenges, etc. This 60-day thing, obviously Trulieve is participating and lots of people have talked about this DEA 60-day thing. Could you expand more who wants to expand more on that and what that is? And it seems like everybody's running through their attorneys to get this done.

[00:30:41]Well, the form is really easy. And so, like it's it's the 60 days was in his order, and by his, Todd Blanche's order, saying that they are going to fast-track the medical marijuana license holders throughout the states that filed their registration in the next 60 days and process them within 6 months. So, in theory, they would be the first ones to the door of IRC 280E not applying. Now, my gosh, this this this 33 pages that he wrote was just like a gift of like, what the heck is that? And so, during it, he like is giving an advisory opinion, which of course, he's a lawyer, even though he is the chief prosecutor of the United States, he is still not competent to give a legal opinion, that's why we have judges. And so, he is giving like an advisory opinion to Treasury to retroactively apply 280E and like directing the Treasury to issue guidance as to that, which Treasury has issued guidance regarding the cannabis industry previously in 2014, the FinCEN, I believe is I believe FinCEN sends in Treasury, but it is a federal criminal enforcement network for like cash. And so, that's one of the things that you have to comply with is this this guidance from 2014 regarding banking in the cannabis industry.

[00:32:01]And so, like in theory, the IRS could issue guidance that they will not be enforcing IRC 280E since 2023.

[00:32:11]That hasn't happened yet. That would be like another just like, wow, that's fascinating, the IRS has done this. But FDA issued guidance that they aren't going to be enforcing the law regarding putting CBD and THC into foodstuffs provided that and then it did it has to comply with aspects of it cuz this is for Dr. Oz's and and Howard Kessler from the Commonwealth projects, you know, pet project of having full spectrum CBD oil available for seniors and cancer patients.

[00:32:42]So, would people be in any medical marijuana license holder if you would you advise them to go ahead and push forward with registering just like Trulieve did?

[00:32:54]I mean, I guess maybe I should be careful about saying advise because you guys are all attorneys and you want to be careful about that. But how do you want to phrase that?

[00:33:03]Is that is it a good idea?

[00:33:05]If Trulieve did it. Again, there's there's there's fascinating aspects of it. And so, like part of it is you have to violate your Fifth Amendment rights.

[00:33:12]One of the things that you must check is whether or not anybody involved has been dealing controlled substances, which Trulieve has been dealing controlled substances for years. Many of of the clients that you would advise out there throughout the United States, there's like 8,000 medical cannabis medical cannabis dispensaries that are, you know, throughout the United States.

[00:33:32]Only about half of them are adult use.

[00:33:34]And so, like, you know, trying to advise them as to that, there you could explain like the tradeoffs and say they can make the business judgment, but it's $794 to apply and then if you're going to ask the IRS for like a refund, that, you know, if you are going to say like, hey, retroactively, I want to amend all my my 3 years of filings and you hire like Kaylex CPA to do it for you.

[00:34:01]I mean, Trulieve, I believe, has already gotten a huge refund from the IRS, like hundreds of millions of dollars. So, they have >> also holding back paying. So, but go ahead.

[00:34:11]>> And holding back paying. And so, like they have enormous incentive to paper their file with legal compliance to the best they can.

[00:34:22]But that's not advice. That's just think of it from a business perspective, you know, here's the pluses, here's the negatives.

[00:34:29]It's your call, client.

[00:34:31]Right. And then and it's a major concern because as an attorney, you can't advise your client to admit to violating federal law on a federal document.

[00:34:42]Right. But then that that federal document is asking you to violate your Fifth Amendment rights.

[00:34:49]And so, like you're you're that is a rock and a hard place. You know, that that's that's a FOSI and bargain. And so, you you could apprise them of what the federal law is telling them to do, the absurd conclusion is then for them to make. Yeah, I think I think the thing we can all agree on is that we would certainly not advise our clients to lie on documents that they are filling out that they're going to submit to the federal government. I think we can all agree on that. 100%.

[00:35:17]But you would be advising them to admit that they're violating currently in violation of federal law.

[00:35:23]No, no, no, no, I didn't say that at all. I said I would not encourage them to lie on documents that they're going to submit to the federal government.

[00:35:30]Whether or not you're going to submit those documents is a whole another question. I just things that we can all agree on.

[00:35:36]And so, to highlight Jeff's that's home's point quickly, too, it's not advising telling people what to do, but advising them of the risks and the benefits of their different choices that are at their disposal and then letting them make the business decision.

[00:35:51]Correct.

[00:35:52]Each of you will undoubtedly be sitting down with a number of operators from a number of different states, Illinois, New York, New Jersey, Arizona, and discussing this.

[00:36:01]So, I mean, these are very complicated times, but I see tremendous business opportunities in place for medical marijuana in regards to potentially interstate commerce or international commerce if this remains in place. Are any of you guys optimistic enough that this will remain in place to talk about that?

[00:36:24]Uh When you say this, do you mean rescheduling or this rescheduling?

[00:36:33]>> [laughter] >> This piece of paper.

[00:36:35]>> important distinction, Demetri. I mean, it's a really, really important distinction. This this the shiny object is not the shiny object is not nearly as attractive.

[00:36:47]>> I mean, say the thing is you guys know all sorts of of producers of, you know, different brands of medical and adult use cannabis in all sorts of different states. You know, they're they're looking to, you know, to go interstate, they're looking to go international.

[00:37:01]Retailers are looking to figure this out. I mean, when they first come to you, what's your first thoughts to them? What what do you say?

[00:37:12]Who wants to take that one? Well, again, uh We're part of the compliance stack.

[00:37:20]And so, like the the possible medical cannabis license holding client, let's say they're in Maine, they could be like, hey, I I consulted expert federal attorneys regarding this change before and then I I consulted my my taxes and my my CPAs prior to filing our amendment and and I and I made the business decision after that informed.

[00:37:47]We're part of the compliance stack, but we are not like a we're not bulletproof vests or anything.

[00:37:53]However, we could then explain to our clients, well, what's the probability that this would go badly for you? Well, what's the probability that you'll be audited, for example? Or what's the probability that the United States will suddenly enforce the federal marijuana laws against your business?

[00:38:13]Those are both like low probability events if we just go with the actual numbers, but while we help them say that they are acting in good faith and in compliance with what they believe to be the federal laws, we are not we're not magicians, you know, we're not wizards, we're not able to declare that this will be 100% fine, but we do have a role to play and if there are, I mean, like come on, these are these are medical marijuana license holders. They understand risk.

[00:38:45]They knew it was illegal, they did it anyway, but they tried to follow their state laws. So, I I think many of them will think it's a trap. Like, you know, hey, this is a trap. And I think many of them will be like, maybe it's a trap, I'm going to go get my refund. And and I want my file in order saying like, hey, I followed what you guys were telling me to do, and and you cannot be I mean, who's lying to who? I'm not allowed allowed to lie to you or that's a federal crime, but you can mislead me and create traps and do all these types of things.

[00:39:19]So, you know, it's a very difficult decision for them to make, but it's fascinating and it's historic that for the first time they get to actually make this type of decision with how to be federally compliant.

[00:39:32]And you know, just a thought, all all four of you guys can do the research and see who files these DEA things, then wouldn't it be kind of like reasonable to follow like if all if truly if adult use medical licenses in Arizona are filing just follow the lead kind of do what they're doing.

[00:39:52]You mean lemmings going off the cliff?

[00:39:55]Yeah, I'm about to say and I don't want to use that company as an example but do we really Does anybody in this world in this group think that following the three or four MSOs that no longer exists was prudent in the past?

[00:40:13]Uh I I I I I think every First of all, every state is so different and within the state there's there's unique differences that there's no one size fits all. I know it's a terrible cliche but it's true in this situation and I I still haven't figured out a way to get around that last question in a way that the client cannot None of us as officers of the law can can knowingly allow our client to answer something dishonestly and as their attorneys we certainly can't let them themselves commit perjury.

[00:40:51]Until you sign that document you have not committed perjury. Once you sign that document and and and and lie and then if you tell the truth there's a whole group of the industry that is skeptical and will will will think that it is a trap. I'm not sure that it is but we can't If someone said to me Lou could some administration in the future use this against me?

[00:41:14]I cannot say definitively no that cannot happen.

[00:41:17]And that gives me great pause.

[00:41:21]And and talking about the the notion of of a trap or the perception of it something we haven't raised during this webinar yet are the restrictions for the DEA registered manufacturers and I think about a legacy cultivator who's now required to put their harvested plants into a facility where the DEA has shared access to it. Um and it's you know it's on the record that it's yours. I can just imagine even if we have rescheduled to to schedule three there's a lot of old school legacy cultivators who are just like you want me to do what?

[00:41:57]And and just in terms of the other just interesting nuances of the final rule not just that you put them in the shared facility but you need to sell your plants to the DEA for a nominal price and then buy them back for the same price and pay the DEA administrative fee which is feels really weird. The DEA is now the plug. Has everybody likes that a lot. It's hilarious. Yeah, the biggest dealer is now the United States. Yeah.

[00:42:24]And I think this actually derives though right from those conventions that we talked about earlier the single convention which which requires that to happen and so it feels really weird. It is weird. It results from international law. I I do also want to circle back though I had to the interstate commerce question. I I saw the comments. It looks like people are asking about that and I I know you did too Demetri and who knows perhaps this is somewhat theoretical. I think the the opportunity for interstate commerce requires not only rescheduling but probably also the DEA registrations you have federal authorization to to move between states and so a couple of points on on interstate commerce. Um Note that the DEA registration what's allowed by it is limited to what's allowed under state law and currently states at least to my knowledge don't allow imports or exports.

[00:43:13]Why? Because when they wrote their law that kind of conduct was violating a federal enforcement priority. So the final rule doesn't mean I think that if you get your DEA registration today you can start shipping across state lines tomorrow because those laws are in place. I think the Controlled Substances Act probably doesn't preempt those laws but there's a very interesting new argument under the dormant commerce clause. In general states are not allowed to prohibit imports and exports unless they have a very good reason to do it and the benefits to public health safety etc. outweigh the harms to interstate commerce and and these are pretty like broad rules and so it's been a state has been prohibited prohibited from barring the import of of waste into the state. States have been prohibited from barring the export of their water and the their fish that used to be you know wildlife on your state's land was the property of the state. Um and so presumably if those kinds of imports and exports aren't allowed it's kind of hard to see marijuana posing a bigger threat to public health and safety than to to waste and and to the loss of water.

[00:44:27]So there's been a a split split between circuit courts over the years on dormant commerce clause's applicability to marijuana and and and why? Because previously there's at least been a strong argument that interstate commerce in in in marijuana is federally prohibited and if there's no federally authorized market some courts including the ninth circuit which is the circuit in which Arizona sits have found there's no federally authorized market therefore the dormant commerce clause doesn't apply but if folks do the DEA registration route either through this final rule or a later rule that handles the issue in just to be clear to this incredibly unique kind of way there could be an authorized federal market interstate market for marijuana which would then undercut some of the reasoning in the ninth circuit's opinion in in Paradot. And so if that happens you could potentially invalidate some of the import and export laws of the states and then you could have interstate commerce market down the road and potentially an international market too.

[00:45:27]Go ahead. Go ahead. John I'll just mention that you know you you bring up the very salient point about the ninth circuit. Out in my circuit in the circuit just north of me they went the other way and what do we know happens when circuit courts don't disagree about the same set of issues? We have some nine black robed folks down in Washington DC that usually like to tell us which one's right right? So I mean I I just I think all of this could come to a kind of a confluence very quickly. I mean you you could see there's no reason right now that there couldn't be a SCOTUS case about this next next term.

[00:46:01]Right? Provided that it doesn't get struck down.

[00:46:04]That's correct. There you go sir.

[00:46:07]And one of the things before before I pivot off this unfortunately this is only going to because I've researched this and and to get some more nuance to it we have two statutes and we're we're only discussing the Controlled Substances Act. Now that's the DEA's bailiwick. If we get into the FDA's now we're discussing the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act and so even with this rescheduling and this registering you still have a non-FDA approved schedule three drug.

[00:46:39]And so the states under their police powers for health safety and welfare can they don't have to This isn't garbage.

[00:46:46]This isn't water. This is drugs. And so not only that it's adulterated or misbranded drugs under the CSA the the FDCA the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act section 355 of it. So they they still can't put it in interstate commerce which is hilarious. Now they can amend and by they I mean Congress can do its job at any time.

[00:47:07]Like they could completely moot this this webinar right now and pass something but they aren't going to do that. And so there's that aspect.

[00:47:15]However now that Trulieve has filed all these hundreds of these these registrations under this new portal that's there do they have standing to come in and implead if and when Sam files that action and push up their legal fees. I think they might.

[00:47:33]Lou did you want to come in?

[00:47:34]>> they do also.

[00:47:36]Okay. Now this I like the fact that there's an or on that FDA or state licensed medical marijuana product because I think that creates a lot of opportunity for entrepreneurs if this all remains in place.

[00:47:51]And that's one of the things I was thinking about in regards to brands and how they work.

[00:47:57]What do you what what do you guys if if this all remains in place this this if this piece of paper remains in place this final rule don't you think at that point somebody can just produce in Illinois and ship it to other states and other countries?

[00:48:13]If they if they amend the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act to say that that is not a misbranded drug you see that the FDA still does its job and so like you can't put a non-FDA approved substance into interstate commerce and so like that the prohibition against the interstate commerce isn't coming and it's not arising from the Controlled Substances Act. It's actually being shut down by the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act.

[00:48:35]So that's that's that's the answer to that.

[00:48:37]>> This is This is the crazy if I may just real quick this is the crazy thing about the way this got all got done. Under normal order if we want to use that term there would be all the agencies would get together and they'd spend all of our tax dollars going to very expensive hotels talking about how they're going to do this and how they're going to do that and making sure our rule 27B stroke six for you Brazil guys make up with this other rule and that they all match and do everything. This is what you get with the chaos candidate right? And and sometimes you need the chaos candidate to break the dam which is what has happened here but then you have all of us coming back after the dam has been broken and said well you flooded this town and you flooded that town and now the the power plant is out and what are we going to do about the airplanes not flying? I'm just I'm going crazy here but I mean this is what happens when the chaos candidate does things in the chaos candidate way and that is exactly what happens when the president says to Joe Rogan go they're slow rolling me and the next day the acting attorney general just does everything that his boss wants him to do. That That gets you exactly where we are and exactly these kinds of issues. Tom, to your point, though, at least we're having that conversation, and as critical as I might be of the president in other areas, he has, in effect, broken the broken the the cookie jar, or whatever else you want to call it, and now it's being put back together, but it again, I believe and I I believe that as a result of creating this dialogue, uh it's going to demand It's going to demand that it be put back together because there's just, frankly, too much money to be made and too much confusion. And so, I you know, I think that he created the dialogue uh when I think everybody else was papering it over and pretending, and now I think we will solve it. I But I don't think it's going to be solved through the piece of paper that was that was signed. It is going to be solved by what comes from that piece of paper, and and which will also require uh synergies with the FDA legislation. And there have There have got to be consistency. The other point, if it ever went to the Supremes, by the way, as all of us know, courts love to throw something out based on procedural defects and not have to deal with the substantive merits. This invites that. This invites that. This is a really great group.

[00:51:00]This is a really great group. You guys are awesome. I know you guys are all good people who love to help your fellow man. And I was think I was I was thinking through this like giving away a lot of good free information. Um so, if I wouldn't mind if you guys want to regroup in like 2 weeks and we could do another one and see where we're at because I think there are going to be some changes happening Why don't we wait till the lawsuit's filed? There's going to be a lawsuit filed.

[00:51:22]But but but but I want to take some of the questions from some of the comments on YouTube uh like so that people can have those things answered real quickly.

[00:51:31]And I want to go through those real quickly. Can you speak Can anyone speak to the Washington law that, given rescheduling, would seemingly authorize the government to allow interstate compacts and transport? And I guess in regards to that, the fact that all state laws have to be changed.

[00:51:48]They don't all have to be changed. What If a state doesn't allow for the importation of medical marijuana if like for example, in Arizona, all the medical marijuana product has to come through the license license holders. Yeah, I think that's I think almost if I'm not mistaken, I think every state's enabling legislation requires that the cannabis sold in the state be grown and processed. Because I know that's certainly the case in New York, and I'm not aware of anywhere that doesn't have that. Yeah.

[00:52:15]Right. So, Washington was just proactive.

[00:52:19]There's another tool that's available to the states that we haven't discussed, and I don't want to throw too much of an of a of a curveball. But that is uh I think 35 or 37 states can sign an inter can sign a compact and have the capacity to make uh laws and that that would apply to them.

[00:52:37]We are now in excess of 40 states, I think, that have legalized some type of uh cannabis uh use.

[00:52:45]Uh you might and I don't know that any governors would be that ambitious, but they might. This is a lot of money and and a lot of chaos. Uh you might have a situation where the states will actually talk about if if if there's nothing coming out other than a broken system and confusion. Better a broken system and a confusing uh you might there would be an opportunity for the states to say, "Okay, it's it's something that's buried in the Constitution, but we do we do have the capacity." I don't know whether it's 35 or 37, there's a number where they can make a compact among themselves. And given much of the legislation has been borrowed from prior states, there's a sufficient amount of consistency among the states where you probably could create a framework that everybody could agree upon. I just throw that out as another uh possible um scenario.

[00:53:35]Unlikely, but possible if there's if if there's total if a total standstill.

[00:53:40]And I I look at this I'm trying to look at this from the perspective of the entrepreneur, but also uh there's questions about patients and and and testing. John, do you want to say what kind of impact this has on patients real quickly?

[00:53:53]Yeah, no, I I'd love to discuss that. I think that's something that's been kind of lost in um a lot of the news reports that I've seen on this issue, and and that was the thing that really blew my mind. It circles back to Demetri to the comment that you made about FDA or and I don't know anyone was expecting that. Um it's why going into rescheduling, my expectation is this would be potentially really good news for businesses with tax relief, other benefits for them, but patients would be largely left out in the cold um because the Controlled Substances Act only authorizes possession if you if you if you received it with authorization from a DEA registered dispenser. And without FDA approval, um it wasn't really clear what kind of a pipeline a consumer would have to lawfully acquire um medical marijuana.

[00:54:38]And of course, there's all of these consequences that that patients and adult use consumers face as a result of the long-term status of marijuana, whether it's uh Second Amendment rights that are at least have been and again, another circuit split going to the Supreme Court over the unauthorized use of a controlled substance. Um again, medical marijuana use has been unauthorized because we haven't been receiving it with from a a practitioner or dispenser authorized by the FDA.

[00:55:03]Um and now we potentially can. Um if if dispensaries get their DEA registrations, if this final rule sticks or another um legal mechanism that's similar comes out later. And so, you're looking at um a wide variety um of potential consequences uh for patients.

[00:55:19]Um in Arizona, out here, 38% I believe of our land is is public land, um national forests, uh BLM, uh national parks, um etc. Um marijuana has been prohibited on public lands. I think there was the US attorney from Montana this year talking about uh crackdowns that were intended there.

[00:55:38]Um immigration issues um that medical marijuana consumption has been a big issue for people that want to either stay in America or immigrate to America.

[00:55:47]Um public housing accessibility. Um really the the list just goes um on and on. Landlord-tenant law, right? We all sign Tenants sign crime-free provisions that aren't just about state law, but including federal law and specifically including controlled substances offenses. So, um really it's it's a a long list that I've been spending a lot of time going through. Also, um talking about interstate commerce, how about interstate travel for patients? Um I think a lot of states have protections from their their their criminal code um drug provisions for patients that get a controlled substance with authorization and qualify as an ultimate user. I should note this varies a lot from state to state. Um there could be also state controlled substances acts that get amended automatically or that are required by law to be amended to align with the federal Controlled Substances Act. So, um this is a really something that could be a subject of its own hour and a half podcast, all of the different consequences for patients. Well, we're giving you an hour and a half at the next meeting. There'll be a few hundred individuals there. A lot of employees, a lot of owners, investors, FA card holders who care about the industry and care about the patients.

[00:56:57]And so, you have an hour and a half, the floor is yours. You can speak. We'll have that available for you. Um at the May 27th >> Somebody asked a question in one of the comments about and I I can't find it. It was one of the early questions about the impact on trying to on a federal job as a result of this.

[00:57:15]Jeff, do you want to comment, though, as well about the impact on the on the patients in the in general?

[00:57:24]I would defer to John on this since he's really the I think the medical cannabis patient expert. I mean, my take will be is if we get to where we're going, then it's going to be look very weird for places to be able to drug test people.

[00:57:36]It'd be like, "Let me drug test you for this prescription drug that your doctor prescribed for you." I don't That's going to be a pretty whacked-out position for employers to take, I would think. John, let let's let let let me let you weigh in on that a little. Yeah.

[00:57:48]Yeah, I've got I've got notes on on that one. And so, when it comes to federal employment, um under Executive Order 12564, the use of illegal drugs is considered incompatible with federal employment. And so, um again, just like Jeff said there, though, that's really I think the the shocking thing about this from a patient perspective is we're moving much closer towards a medical marijuana card functioning like a prescription. Um in fact, in the final rule itself, when it discusses uh medical marijuana cards that authorize a dispensary to dispense to someone, the the header of that subsection is actually prescription. And um like someone else referenced earlier on the call, it basically just ignores, "Notwithstanding all of the rules that are applicable to prescriptions, this is how it's going to work for for medical marijuana."

[00:58:35]Um another one of these issues, too, kind of regarding the shoot from the hip and ask questions later, and you've all these different state laws that are not and it's not like a uniform thing we have, like the Uniform Commercial Code.

[00:58:45]We all have different state laws. And so, um just from an Arizona um perspective on this on patients, I should note, too, for patient perspective, this is not automatic. This is if you get it from uh a DEA registered person in compliance with the final rule, not just any medical marijuana for a patient. Um cuz it's about how you get it. Uh but for our medical marijuana cards, as it stands now, we have no reference to uh who which practitioner um recommended the card, but that's now one of the requirements um of in in the final rule for a card to be effective. It needs to list the practitioner. And so, um that kind of circles back, too, I think, to your point, Demetri, about changing state laws. Um I wonder, too, our medical marijuana law here has very very very stringent confidentiality provisions that are uh I think, in large part um intended to prevent the disclosure of that information to federal authorities. And so I wonder here too about if there's going to be a requirement for regulators to work more closely at federal and state level and and how that would function in a state like Arizona where there is such confidentiality. So a lot of questions but yes very salient for federal employees in addition to many employees of federal contractors whose contracts required drug um drug-free [snorts] policies at the the workplace. So again the list just goes on and on and I'm looking forward to our and a half a meter. The CDL truckers.

[01:00:08]I was just going to say that. Yeah, there's millions of them. Yeah. Mhm.

[01:00:13]I don't have a an immediate answer on that one. I wouldn't be surprised if there's changes there but I haven't confirmed it.

[01:00:21]Well, so you know this is incredibly tough for attorneys because you guys want to give your clients absolute answers and there aren't any absolute answers on this particular subject. Um There aren't. 43 years I don't know that I've told many clients I gave them an absolute answer. I Lou I give them this one.

[01:00:39]I'M INSURED.

[01:00:41]>> [laughter] >> NO, BUT UH AND BY THE WAY IF ANYBODY has written opinion letters and I have Right.

[01:00:49]the thing about the opinion letter is really good until you read the last three paragraphs and then you realize that the prior three pages have minimal value.

[01:01:01]So When we we're Demitri we're in a wild wild west. We're still in the wild wild west. There are some new rules by the sheriff but you're still in the wild wild west.

[01:01:12]But along the last 16 years that I've been 14 years I've been involved in cannabis it seems the best option to is just do it and deal with the results because the momentum is on the side of not being thrown in jail.

[01:01:28]You know cuz as an entrepreneur. You know I mean technically anybody can be thrown in in federal jail right now except for the Cole memorandum.

[01:01:35]You know and so along those lines you guys can't really advise your clients you know take chances what the heck it's schedule three make some medical marijuana product and start doing what you want.

[01:01:48]You see what I'm saying?

[01:01:52]Is that Demitri I mean I don't know bud.

[01:01:57]Yeah, I was going to say I think that arguably cuts both ways, right? The federal government was saying for years like don't do anything involving marijuana and people definitively didn't do that and it worked out.

[01:02:08]Somewhat on the subject too I think it's worth mentioning the Rohrabacher fire amendment. There's been this writer to prohibit the use of federal dollars for enforcement prosecution of state compliant medical medical marijuana conduct. And so my understanding is that's that's still in effect. And so I one of the other questions I've been puzzling over is like is this a you need to do it or how how optional is it in light of the amendment but also the command in the final rule that people must register. So uh Yeah, will you be There's a little bit of tension >> putting yourself in a market disadvantage by not registering. You know not just surely trying to take care of take advantage of the opportunity.

[01:02:49]Are you putting yourself behind something that's actually a gift that the federal government has thrown out.

[01:02:55]You know and along those lines I was thinking to myself you should always just always maintain compliance with state law no matter what because they're much closer to you.

[01:03:04]But what do you guys think about that? I mean could you be missing a gift?

[01:03:09]You don't have to take the gift right now.

[01:03:11]The gift's open for about two months.

[01:03:13]>> taking that gift man. I I don't let somebody else let them have the gift first and see exactly how that works out.

[01:03:20]One of my questions when it comes to implementation is how siloed the DEA registered ecosystem will be. Will they require all marijuana sold in DEA registered dispensaries to originate and perhaps not now cuz it's implausible today nothing was DEA registered a few months ago but moving forward prospectively will they require DEA registered dispensaries to sell marijuana from DEA registered manufacturers and kind of separate the the supply chain to require it to all be registered in which case there could be some pressure market pressures where if a significant enough number of people get DEA registered and the DEA requires stuff to move through its registered ecosystem maybe you see some market pressure at that point that folks feel like to not lose out on all of the demand from DEA registered dispensaries that they feel pressure to get registered too.

[01:04:14]I don't know. It depends I think on some questions we don't have high confidence answers to at least yet.

[01:04:19]If anybody needs my name to be on one of those DEA registries I can always host this podcast from Brazil.

[01:04:27]Yeah. Excellent.

[01:04:29]Well look um there's lots to talk about and um I want to regroup with you guys in a couple weeks or as you guys determine is the next best time.

[01:04:41]Um you know people can reach out to you.

[01:04:43]point about waiting for the waiting for the suit filed makes a lot of sense because we're going to probably have the same we're going to have uncertainty after the suit's filed but it'll be certain uncertainty as opposed to uncertain uncertainty now. I'd like to see what that what it looks like. Well, I know you guys have lots of clients you guys meet a lot of people and talk to a lot of people and I would encourage all of anyone who's listening to this or anyone who meets you guys to utilize you as attorneys not just because you have fine minds but you're all you're all very nice people all four of you. Um how do people get in touch with you?

[01:05:17]Uh best way for me shoot me an email John j o n without the h at fullspectrumlawcollective.com.

[01:05:27]And then Well John Everybody [clears throat] prepare some closing thoughts as we go through the contact information. So John get ready your closing thoughts but Lou go ahead next contact info.

[01:05:38]>> Lou at l n m l a w s.com Lou at l n m laws.com.

[01:05:45]I was once magalaws but then found that I could not do that even that I was maga before he was maga.

[01:05:51]So I am now my initials.

[01:05:55]Tom?

[01:05:56]Yeah, you can find me over at cannabis legalization news on YouTube or my website for my my legal practice for cannabis is not my regular one because you get blacklisted. Wonder if that'll change now that it's schedule three. But that's cannabisindustrylawyer.com. You can go there and get in touch with me.

[01:06:16]Yes and Jeff?

[01:06:18]Get me at 420jurist.com.

[01:06:21]You can also find me on LinkedIn Jeffrey Hoffman. I'm probably the only cannabis attorney named Jeffrey Hoffman on LinkedIn.

[01:06:30]Uh okay excellent. So we'll now give like a minute for each you guys do some closing thoughts. We'll do John and then Tom and then Jeff and then Lou.

[01:06:40]So John go ahead.

[01:06:44]You're on mute John.

[01:06:46]Thanks for that Demitri. Just kind of wow it's just the the extent to which this was surprising. I think one of my high-level thoughts again is just what a victory for common sense after all of these years. It's been over 4,000 years now since people have recommended to others they consume marijuana for a medical purpose starting in China on to India also about 3,000 3,500 years ago and so many states that have authorized the medical use of marijuana all of the people in America who have first-hand experiences with the medical benefits myself included. So just got to love to see the the victory for common sense and and acknowledging what so many of us know is true.

[01:07:28]Fingers crossed that it sticks. Again if it is I think one of the main message is here if you're you're not in the business space and if you are and it qualifies get your medical marijuana card. There's a whole bunch of good reasons to do it now even if you have kind of skipped in the years since adult use. So I look forward to attending more of these webinars discussing more what this means as as the final rule rolls out as the potential challenge and likely challenge proceeds. So thanks for having me.

[01:07:58]It's been a great time discussing this with everyone.

[01:08:01]Tom?

[01:08:03]Well, many lawyers practice in what they call well-settled areas of law whether it's torts or criminal law or other stuff like that. This is novel law. This is not well-settled at all. This is brand new making it up by the seat of their pants. And so the lawyers that have too much confidence this is something that Learned Hand said he was a judge once.

[01:08:27]Great name for a judge. But um for the people that are [ __ ] sure about anything the sky has ominous tones or something like that. Be wary of lawyers that you meet that are too overconfident and not nuanced enough when giving you and your company advice on these brand new legal issues that didn't exist a few days ago.

[01:08:52]Jeff?

[01:08:53]Yeah, I think that's sound advice on Tom's part. I echo what John said. Um the you know cannabis has been part of humanity as long as there's been humanity.

[01:09:06]It's wonderful that we're finally getting some sanity related to the medical side of things. I'm really excited that we're going to be hopefully able to start seeing real clinical trials and real funding go into figuring out what is the good bad and the ugly. I am a believer that there are absolutely great uses for cannabis in a medical setting. I am not one of these people that believe cannabis is the cure-all for every medical ailment that every person has. So, I do think it will be wonderful for us to get the science about what this incredible plant does for people and also, let's be real, what it doesn't do.

[01:09:43]That being said, I am not optimistic about what this portends for what is called recreational or here in New York we call adult use cannabis. I do in fact see a putative scenario where this is the first nail in the coffin for recreational and adult use cannabis in the United States. I'm very concerned about that. Demitri and you and I have talked about that a little bit on your podcast, some of the events we've been at.

[01:10:10]Um and I just think we have to be very careful about what's going to happen here. I'm not optimistic about what this administration is going to do in these upcoming hearings, assuming they happen, related to recreational or adult use cannabis. We know the president himself is not a fan of it. Everything that he's talked about here has been exclusively related to medicinal use. So, I just think people that are in the adult use or recreational space need to really be very careful what they wish for here. I do think there are outcomes which are not good um for that part of the industry.

[01:10:43]And uh Lou, go ahead and uh folks, you know, none of this our sponsors up there. None of this is not is possible without uh Lou's law firm and uh Moon Rocks, a nice brand that's spreading out of California, sponsoring these kind of things. So, we thank you again. Uh Lou, uh closing thoughts from you? Happy to do with this great group. Uh let me disagree uh partially with brother Hoffman. Uh I think ultimately, I just looked up Gallup in 2023 said grassroots support for legalizing marijuana hits record 70%. Um and what's interesting, when you look at 1969, it was about 10%.

[01:11:21]Uh and I believe that uh the will of people will ultimately prevail. I think like everything else though, there will be uh bumps in the road, there will be hiccups, whatever word you want to use.

[01:11:32]There will not be a direct line. But uh I think that if overtime uh and I believe there will be a default to medicinal because I think there's even greater support, probably around 80 or 85% when you couch it in those terms.

[01:11:46]But ultimately, uh I believe that this executive order will be the beginning of something good for the industry because it's created a dialogue and it will create because of the of the confusion, will by necessity uh require uh a a reasonable uh and consistent uh nationally applied standard. Now, that may mean going back from where some places like New York and New Jersey may be, but as a national standard, it creates uh an opportunity, I think, uh that will ultimately be positive. Now, I am 68 years old, I've been practicing law for 43 years. I am not sure that I will see that ultimate result while I'm still practicing, but I am confident it will happen and I think within the next next five to five to 10 years. Not immediately, but I think over that that arc, I think then we will and the real problem will happen then is all the big companies are going to want to come in and and dive in on this industry, but that's that's a whole 'nother discussion. Thank you for the opportunity, Demitri. Well, excellent.

[01:12:49]Um and I'm sure you're reaching out to your friend Senator Booker and seeing how how he can get involved. We've moved him, you know, if you were at the uh if you were at the uh Ignited conference we had in Washington, he's he spoke publicly and unequivocally about his support for this industry and I think that was an important voice.

[01:13:08]Yeah, I do want to recognize that uh Senator Booker, Senator Gallego, they're champions on this issue. So, people should reach out to their offices uh with information, concerns and and let them know kind of what's going on, the struggles of of industry, of operators, of patients, et cetera, cuz they do care. So, I'd I'd like to recognize that. But again, I thank you guys for your time. It is an honor sitting amongst you. It's one of my great honors of my tenure in the cannabis industry sitting amongst all these fine CPUs. Uh you know, so anyways, this has been another episode of Meet the Unshackled and uh thank you again to our sponsors and we will circle back. So, stay subscribed to our email list and if you want to meet John, I know John, you will be there May 27th hosting a panel of attorneys uh discussing this issue as it relates to >> Anybody going to be in Atlantic City next next week at MJ Unpacked? We uh we have a booth and we have a couple of receptions and would love to see folks and and sponsoring the official after-party 9:00 to midnight at the Showboat pool. Excellent. Excellent. So, you can physically find Lou in Atlantic City uh next week at MJ Unpacked. Uh that's fantastic. And uh any you guys going to pop up anywhere Tom or Jeff anytime soon?

[01:14:24]I got to get my dispensary open and then I'm I'm out of here in the last week of this month. After I get the dispensary open, hopefully I can resurface for a breath or two.

[01:14:35]And Jeff, will you be at Revelry? I'm not sure yet, but I will definitely be at the New York State Cannabis Control Board meeting, which is a week from yesterday out in Nassau County.

[01:14:47]Well, these are exciting times and you guys are great people to have on on your team if you're a business or an operator, so I'd highly recommend all four of you. Uh again, thank you for your time and we will see you next time.

[01:15:08]Are we stopped?